-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Funding other powers definately was part of history, but not in the sense of: Please give me money because I am so poor.
There would be, for example, no reason for Spain to fund Russia.
Gangbangs should not occur much in a RP game.
There would be, for example, no reason for Spain to fund Russia.
Gangbangs should not occur much in a RP game.
Hive said:
Good, no problem with that. Generally no problem with LIMITED funding of an ongoing LIMITED war.
What I don't like to see is Spain funding Austria, England and Prussia to DOW France if France dares to DOW Spain (so, not financing an ongoing war but paying sort of insurence for possible war years in the future - Kings don't remember so well for so long time nor can they make so firm commitments for the future). And adding Russia and Sweden to the list so they don't DOW Prussia. And OE so they don't DOW Austria...
Interfering with money in an ongoing limited war to influence the outcome, but without spreading the conflict too much in space and in number of participands... that I have nothing against.
Paying money for FUTURE UNSPECIFIED services I definitelly don't like.
Something in between is paying for expansion of the conflict, for a third party to enter the war.
Barnius said:
Well. A good way to prevent something like this would be to use the Diplomacy Universalis concept, with players moving randomly between sessions...
Though I think I'm one of the only persons who actually like that concept.
FAL perhaps you should make an example game first post with guidelines, rules etc. You could then modify it as per discussion. Simply throwing around ideas is ok but they are bound to get lost in the void if there is no note of them.
Better to get something down in writing and then develop it.
Better to get something down in writing and then develop it.
cheech said:
Yes, I was thinking about that too. It is hard to keep track of things now
You can expect one today.
A few words of advice from an old hand in order of importance:
1. Have an all powerful GM who can punish/reward as appropriate.
2. Have few specific rules - any issues see point 1. In a RP game the GM directs the flow if it needs a prompt and your missions idea is the primary tool for this and so vital. You will however probably find it difficult (ie too time consuming) to come up with missions for everyone each session so I suggest not holding yourself to that.
3. Look for mature players that you already know if possible or are recommended by someone you know, though it is nice to introduce one or two newbies it is also a risk.
4. If you go for lots of edits make sure you have someone you can share the load with to cope with holidays or when you just don't have time, but make sure one of you is clearly the primary GM who makes final desicions if the two of you disagree on anything, but keep your disagreements private.
5. My personal preference - but I suggest the GM should control one of the stronger countries - it helps sometimes to be able to influence the game that way especially if someone is misbehaving. Much easier to slap them down in-game than have a fuss created on the forum.
Finally, good luck in carrying on the mantle. I'm taking a summer break from EU2 but will no doubt be back, and I'm sure to keep an eye on this one.
1. Have an all powerful GM who can punish/reward as appropriate.
2. Have few specific rules - any issues see point 1. In a RP game the GM directs the flow if it needs a prompt and your missions idea is the primary tool for this and so vital. You will however probably find it difficult (ie too time consuming) to come up with missions for everyone each session so I suggest not holding yourself to that.
3. Look for mature players that you already know if possible or are recommended by someone you know, though it is nice to introduce one or two newbies it is also a risk.
4. If you go for lots of edits make sure you have someone you can share the load with to cope with holidays or when you just don't have time, but make sure one of you is clearly the primary GM who makes final desicions if the two of you disagree on anything, but keep your disagreements private.
5. My personal preference - but I suggest the GM should control one of the stronger countries - it helps sometimes to be able to influence the game that way especially if someone is misbehaving. Much easier to slap them down in-game than have a fuss created on the forum.
Finally, good luck in carrying on the mantle. I'm taking a summer break from EU2 but will no doubt be back, and I'm sure to keep an eye on this one.
Wyvern said:
Needless to say that is exactly my view too and what I went for in Mach I
FAL said:
Just getting rid of all leaders would achieve that goal better and far more easily too
BiB said:Just getting rid of all leaders would achieve that goal better and far more easily too
Of course, but it would be dull. And as I said, I also want to give countries like France a historical push option. A game without Napoleon? *shivers*.
FAL said:
Now FAL, I am sure you know games without Nappy aren't that bad *points to the ToH2 thread*
Though I think it's in general a good idea to keep leaders, I think you should take historical leaders into account somewhat when giving randoms. It's not like France needs more land-leaders, or England more admirals.
But that's probably a load of work, so it's all up to you
FAL said:
A game without Napoleon is as realistic as a game with Portugal having a 6-6-6 leader in 1795
Someone help me out here with BiB!
Yes, but that first option is less fun and also means the big manpower nations have an advantage.
No leaders at all would certainly give the countries which lack the historical leaders the opportunity to play the same ball game as those with leaders, but I don't want to get rid of all historical leaders.
For me, they are an important part of the game and in a way necessary to get the historical feeling which I find important.
If the French revolution arrives and it is all about France trying to dominate Europe, could we do without the Napoleon leaders?
If the Netherlands try to break away from France, can they do without William of Orange, their historical leader?
So, what I want and trying to find a solution for is keeping the historical leaders, while giving the countries wich lack them a chance to stay competitive military wise too.
If you have a good idea to solve this matter, I am all ears
BiB said:A game without Napoleon is as realistic as a game with Portugal having a 6-6-6 leader in 1795
Yes, but that first option is less fun and also means the big manpower nations have an advantage.
No leaders at all would certainly give the countries which lack the historical leaders the opportunity to play the same ball game as those with leaders, but I don't want to get rid of all historical leaders.
For me, they are an important part of the game and in a way necessary to get the historical feeling which I find important.
If the French revolution arrives and it is all about France trying to dominate Europe, could we do without the Napoleon leaders?
If the Netherlands try to break away from France, can they do without William of Orange, their historical leader?
So, what I want and trying to find a solution for is keeping the historical leaders, while giving the countries wich lack them a chance to stay competitive military wise too.
If you have a good idea to solve this matter, I am all ears
I cant beleive in a discussion about a historical rp game your talking about removing leaders. I played a game without leaders once and it was quite dull. Personally i look foward to the gustav erra or the nappy. Its once of the best parts of EU.
FAL said:Someone help me out here with BiB!
Yes, but that first option is less fun and also means the big manpower nations have an advantage.
No leaders at all would certainly give the countries which lack the historical leaders the opportunity to play the same ball game as those with leaders, but I don't want to get rid of all historical leaders.
For me, they are an important part of the game and in a way necessary to get the historical feeling which I find important.
If the French revolution arrives and it is all about France trying to dominate Europe, could we do without the Napoleon leaders?
If the Netherlands try to break away from France, can they do without William of Orange, their historical leader?
So, what I want and trying to find a solution for is keeping the historical leaders, while giving the countries wich lack them a chance to stay competitive military wise too.
If you have a good idea to solve this matter, I am all ears
Of course the Dutch can do so without William of Orange because they're not up against superior leadership in Alva and Farnese now
Oh and the leader system in Victoria is brilliant
If you want any player nation a chance to be competitive, give them money and manpower too! Otherwise a Portugal who gets a 5-5-5 leader versus a Spain who gets a 5-5-5 leader is going to lose anyway. And if you then go with the earlier propsoed system that rewards won wars Spain will get even more ahead after that.
But I'm not much in favour of that
I'd like the historical path too and that means certain nations have certain edges. For some that means leaders. You don't give anyone equal access to the Spanish gold either. OF course you could say that at least it is possible for another nation to get to the gold first but let's be honest here, that chance is about as big as getting an ahistorical leader, aka non existant unless the game is screwy/screwed.
cheech said:
I'm not in favour of it either as I said but I just wanted to point out that no historical leaders is as realistic/historical as adding leaders that never existed
